↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Gynecological emergency ultrasound in daytime and at night: differences that cannot be ignored

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
Gynecological emergency ultrasound in daytime and at night: differences that cannot be ignored
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, June 2018
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s169165
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bin-Bin Jin, Yi-Zhen Gong, Yan Ma, Zhong-Hui He

Abstract

Ultrasonography, the preferred adjunct examination method and the differential diagnostic tool for gynecologic emergency, can reflect the change pattern of gynecological diseases in daytime and at night. The purpose of this study was to analyze the diseases through gynecological emergency ultrasound in daytime and at night and to evaluate the day-night difference in the accuracy of ultrasound diagnosis. Retrospective analysis was performed on the 2016 clinical data of the patients who had undergone gynecological emergency ultrasound at The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, and the results of the ultrasound diagnosis were compared with the clinical diagnosis. The following categories of gynecologic emergency diseases during the daytime and at night have significant statistical differences in the constituent ratio (P<0.001); ectopic pregnancy, intrauterine pregnancy, acute pelvic inflammatory disease, no organic lesion in uterine and adnexa; while the constituent ratio of abortion and trophoblastic diseases, ovarian tumor, uterine and endometrial lesions, was no statistical difference during the daytime and at night (P>0.05). The overall coincidence rate of ultrasound diagnosis was 96.3% (daytime, 97.9%; night, 86.4%). The coincidence rates of ectopic pregnancy ultrasonography diagnosis in daytime and at night were 96.4 and 75.4%, respectively; the difference was statistically significant (P<0.001). Since the different constituent ratio of disease between daytime and night gynecological emergency ultrasound was significantly different, and the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound at night was low; hence, the ultrasound doctor at night should pay attention to improve the accuracy of diagnosis and the ability of differential diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy, and it is suggested that some suspected cases during the night should be reexamined again in the daytime to eliminate the errors resulted from subjective factors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 6 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 20%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Unknown 7 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 June 2018.
All research outputs
#7,782,070
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#402
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,764
of 342,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#13
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,877 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.